Author: Gregory Maxwell 2014-08-01 03:31:19
Published on: 2014-08-01T03:31:19+00:00
In an email exchange in 2014, Matt Whitlock questioned the notion of transactions being considered "final" until a reasonable number of confirmations. He argued that ordinary transactions can also become invalid due to chain reorganizations caused by inputs already having been spent in the new branch. However, the distinction is that they can only become invalid through a conflict or by being replaced by another transaction authored by prior signers. Whitlock expressed concern that introducing chance events into the mix could expose more corner cases, such as flooding the network with unrelated high fee transactions to push a transaction out where it can never be mined at all. This introduces unpredictability where it did not exist before and makes what was once a loose one-way coupling much tighter.
Updated on: 2023-05-19T19:13:22.301389+00:00